Listening to Inner City Teachers of English Language Learners: Differentiating
Literacy Instruction [1]

Laurie MacGillivray

Robert Rueda

University of Southern California

The Problem

Too many students are not learning to be successful readers
and writers. They are moving into the upper elementary grades as struggling
readers. This inability becomes a burden that affects all of their academic
learning. Children of color living in poverty and/or learning English are
grossly over-represented in the group of unsuccessful literacy students. There
has been important research in the last fifteen years that can help teachers
and principals better meet the needs of children often unintentionally neglected
by traditional instruction. Differentiated instruction improves children’s
chances for becoming competent readers and writers.

We have examined literacy learning in the inner city of Los Angeles for several
years. Our research has been one of many studies conducted under the auspices
of the nationally-funded Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
Recently we analyzed what we have learned from teachers about high quality
instruction for poor second language learners. We preface the discussion with
a short description of the notion of responsivity, which subsumes the specific
practices and guidelines presented later in the paper.

Vygotskian Notion of Responsivity

Sociocultural theory, with roots in Vytogsky’s sociocultural theory
of mind, emphasizes the social and cultural basis of teaching, learning, and
development (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In this view, teaching is seen
as providing assistance (social mediation) to a learner at a level just above
what might the learner might accomplish independently. Good instruction, which
is responsive, then, falls in that space between what the learner can already
do alone and what can be done with assistance. Instruction that ignores what
students already know or can do, or that is too difficult, does not represent
effective pedagogy. It is therefore important to understand and respond to
what children know and to recognize what knowledge they come into the classroom
with. It is also important to assure that simple factors such as language
differences do not make instruction inappropriately difficult.

Differentiating Instruction

There are many ways to consider differentiating instruction for emergent
readers and writers. We strongly believe that problems are situated within
specific contexts much more than within specific individuals. Therefore, a
single approach to varying instruction will not be appropriate for all schools,
all teachers, or all children. Educators must have a repertoire of strategies
so that they can vary their interactions and curriculum as needed. Below,
we describe seven broad guidelines we have drawn from our research with teachers.

Be Responsible For Knowing About Your Students’ Lives

Teachers must learn about their children’s lives beyond the school
walls. This inquiry can be formal or informal. Teachers can systematically
investigate families’ worlds. In his work with Latino immigrant families,
Moll & Whitmore (1993) used the term “funds of knowledge”
to refer to the incredible wealth of typically untapped community wisdom.
He involved classroom teachers in examining the highly-developed information
networks that enabled families to be successful in a variety of areas.

But there are some less time-consuming steps toward increasing their knowledge
of specific communities. They can go for a print walk around the neighborhood,
noting the types of public messages (business signs to graffiti), the languages
utilized, and the purposes of text. Walking students home or other impromptu
acts offer insights into children’s lives beyond the schoolyard.

Expect The Most; Avoid The Deficit Model

It is important that we don’t confuse differentiating instruction with
lowering expectations. All too often this is the case, even with well-intentioned
teachers. Allington (1983) captured this in a study on the way teachers’
lead leveled reading groups. He found that students in the lower groups focused
less on meaning than the “high group” and spent more time focused
on phonemes. Frequently with second language learners, English oral proficiency
is confounded with cognitive competence. Similarly, children with differing
ways of experiencing narrative (such as story telling) are regularly assumed
to be lacking intelligence. Children need high expectations and challenges
in order to thrive. Educators need to figure out what children do know and
use those strengths to move them forward.

Implement Curriculum That Is Meaningful To The Children

Most prepackaged curricula were created with middle-class, native English
speakers in mind. Many of the children that fall outside of this group feel
alienated when they cannot find images of their own lives in the curriculum.
We must find ways to involve them and their worlds in the day-to-day life
of the classroom.

One teacher that we recently worked with in a study on reading engagement
used issues in the children’s lives as the foundation for literacy instruction.
For example, during the controversy over bilingual education (instigated by
Proposition 227) one of her first graders asked why anyone would want people
to know just one language. She set aside her plans and took the time to explore
the issue more fully. The little boy came to the front of the class and explained
what he had seen and how he felt. The class discussed the advantages of knowing
two languages and the disadvantage of knowing just English or Spanish.

In another instance during Social Studies, she asked the children to create
3-D habitats. Many of the children talked about their overcrowded apartments
and homes they wished to have in the future. These kinds of activities legitimize
the children’s lives and concerns that are rarely represented in curriculum
materials.

Recognize Knowledge Of Two Languages And Cultures

Often students labeled “low” or “struggling” in reading
are using language in rich and complex ways outside of school. Specifically,
many of these children act as “language brokers,” a term coined
by McQuillan & Tse (1995). They help monolingual family members interact
with the English-dominant environment. This can mean explaining to salespeople what a parent wants,
paying bills, and/or translating for doctors and teachers. Literacy brokers
learn to be sensitive to cultural and contextual norms when moving between
two languages.

Besides carrying the burden of critical interactions, these young English-language
learners are figuring out the difficult process of translation, as well as
frequently working with a wide variety of genres including bills, receipts,
coupons and legal documents. Teachers can tap into this typically ignored
resource of knowledge. This knowledge can inform teachers’ whole group
instruction as well as individualized interventions.

Another benefit to recognizing children’s linguistic backgrounds is
a better understanding of students’ writing and inventive spelling.
Although teachers can not be fluent in every language spoken in their classroom,
general knowledge about other languages can lead to informative analysis.
For example, a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish enables specific knowledge
of why some students may be using some spelling patterns, such as “ll”
for a “y” sound. Remembering to reflect on the deeper reasons
students may be writing or spelling in a certain way can inform differentiated
instruction.

Be Aware Of Default Curriculum: Content And Structure

There are routines and topics that are viewed by many as “givens.”
One very common structural pattern of classroom interactions is teacher-lecture,
teacher-question, followed by teacher-conclusion. The teacher decides what
will be covered, how it will be covered, and students respond within a narrow
band of behaviors with a small ratio of talk compared to that of the teachers.
Teachers we worked with remember hating this structure, but many are reproducing
it in their own classrooms. This default curriculum is what new teachers see
practiced in their classrooms, represented in most curriculum guides, expected
by teachers and, for most, was their dominant in their schooling experience.

Similarly, there is default content. For example, in Los Angeles, many elementary
classrooms spend some time focusing on the four seasons. But it is rare to
find a tree with orange and yellow trees in the fall, we only see snow on
the peaks of mountains; and rainy season does not fit neatly into winter,
fall, spring, or summer. As teachers and principals, we must interrogate our
curriculum. We need the structure and content to work for our students. Also,
we need to remember to communicate the reasons for our practices to both our
students and their parents.

Looking beyond Reading Instruction

Differentiating instruction can improve the chances for all children to be
successful. But there are some larger societal issues that need to be a part
of the conversation. Teachers and principals need society’s support.

Poverty

Edmund W. Gordon, the first director of Head Start, stated, “I think
schools can be much more powerful, but I don’t think they can reverse
all the ill effects of a starkly disadvantaged status in society” (as
quoted in Traub, 2000). The inequities of our society and the pervasiveness
of poverty is recognized in many ways in the mass media. Yet schools are often
expected to balance out all inequities. As Traub (2000) wrote in a New York
Times article, “The idea that school, by itself, cannot cure poverty
is hardly astonishing, but it is amazing how much of our political discourse
is implicitly predicated on the notion that it can”.

As educators, we need to fight outside the school walls as well as inside
to increase the chance for success for poor children. Learning about the economic
realities of our children’s parents and community issues can enable
us to see the complexity between economic opportunities and poverty.

Anti-immigrant Sentiment and Anti-bilingualism

Recently there has been an increase in anti-immigrant sentiment as well as
a move to discourage bilingualism. One way to examine this issue is to consider
the recent initiatives that have been put before the California voters. This
state seems to be leading a trend that is moving across the country.

Proposition 187, which focused on illegal immigrants in 1994, was the first
major initiative that caught voters’ attention. It made illegal aliens
ineligible for public social services, public health care services (unless
in cases of emergency under federal law), and public school education at elementary,
secondary, and post-secondary levels. Various state and local agencies, including
schools and specifically teachers, were required to report those who were
suspected of being in the country illegally. The measure was described in
the official ballot argument as “the first giant stride in ultimately
ending the ILLEGAL ALIEN invasion.’’

Although this proposition was found unconstitutional in the courts, two years
later Proposition 209 was passed in California. Commonly known as the “Anti-Affirmative
Action Proposition,” among other things, it prohibited “…the
state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, and schools,
and other government instrumentalities from discriminating against or giving
preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public
education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity,
or national origin.”

Perhaps the most controversial initiative of all was Proposition 227, commonly
known as the “Anti-bilingual Initiative.” On June 2, 1998, California
voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 227, an initiative that largely
eliminates bilingual education from the state’s public schools. Under
the California initiative, most limited-English-proficient students in that
state are now placed in English-immersion programs and then shifted as quickly
as possible into regular classrooms.

Parents, students, and bilingual teachers talk about their feelings of shame
even though they knew these propositions were wrong. These larger societal
and institutional issues impede children’s learning. When students do
not feel valued and when they are encouraged to disown parts of themselves,
they are less likely to engage in school tasks.

Lack of Resources

Most of the schools serving poor children have fewer resources than those
in middle- and upper-class neighborhoods. For example, the most recent elementary
school where we conducted research on reading engagement did not have a library
until last year. When they did get one, it was solely because the principal
obtained a grant. The scarcity of written materials is a common problem even
though literacy researchers have documented how access to books increases
the time children spend reading, and thus improves their literacy competencies.

Even though many children have strong family and community networks and there
are advantages to living downtown, the difficulties are numerous. Money for
community and police-sponsored programs that once flourished in large cities
has shrunk. Drug deals are common in the streets and crime is high. Safe areas
to play outside are almost non-existent when living in a downtown apartment,
hotel, or shelter. Most importantly, many of the educational opportunities
are expensive. We found that many families had not visited the nearby Children’s
Museum due to high admission fees. The library also was often not used because
the parents were afraid of the fines attached to late, damaged, and lost books.
Transportation to other areas of town is typically time-consuming and/or cost-prohibitive.

There are solutions to these problems, but they need to be long-term and
multifaceted. Many corporations are beginning to make positive differences
in downtown living conditions. Creation and support of after-school and weekend
programs provides safe places for children. Another way to intervene is to
become politically active. Pushing for extra funding for fieldtrips is yet
another area in which efforts could fight the disadvantages of living in urban
poverty.

Environmental Hazards

Safety and health issues are rarely discussed problems that decrease children’s
chances for being successful literacy learners. In our conversations with
teachers and their principals, we found they spent a great deal of time and
energy fighting for the conditions that are a given in suburban schools. For
over a year, one teacher requested to have the vents cleaned in her bungalow
because of health reports connecting the presence of microorganisms to cancer.
Bungalows were also found to lack good circulation, since the only door in
the room is closed and many do not have windows that open. Neither of these
issues was addressed in the media until they were an issue in the suburban
schools.

These classrooms are also supposed to be vacuumed once a month. In many classrooms
in other schools it is done once a week. One teacher had to write several
letters to the plant manager informing him that she was not being included,
and then waited months for action. The plant manager does not report to the
principal, so there is not an immediate supervisor on campus.

These problems may arise in all school districts, but they are more numerous
and the resolutions seem to take longer in crowded urban schools. Even when
parents are involved in academic activities, such as literacy nights, there
are deterrents to participation, including long schedules and language issues,
that make further involvement difficult. In suburban schools, at least a few
vocal parents are more likely to intervene in these kinds of problems. Also,
middle- and upper-class parents tend to know more about how to influence the
system. For example, they know at what level to complain, whom to write letters
to, and the best tone and content for interactions with the schools.

Conclusion

Improving the numbers of successful literacy learners requires action on
multiple levels: teachers and administrators, academics, community leaders,
parents, and politicians. As educators we need to simultaneously look inward
at classroom curriculum, and outward at societal issues that impede our students’
progress. Practicing the guidelines we have learned from teachers is difficult.
Support networks of teachers and administrators are critical for rethinking
our curriculum and our role in larger community issues, to best serve the
needs of poor, inner-city second language learners.

[1] The work reported herein was supported
in part under the Education Research and Development Centers Program PR/Award
Number R305R70004, as administered by the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. However, the contents do not necessarily
represent the positions or policies of the National Institute on Student Achievement,
Curriculum, and Assessment or the National Institute on Early Childhood Development,
or the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement
by the federal government.